Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Recent Comments
•By Charles
 at Mar 10, 9:12 PM about
 SALMAN PAK
•By Kevin Colwell
 at Mar 09, 2:22 AM about
 SALMAN PAK
•By ockham
 at Mar 07, 10:56 PM about
 SALMAN PAK
•By chris
 at Mar 07, 5:18 PM about
 SALMAN PAK
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 7719 sources banned.

SALMAN PAK

I've long been curious why the Bush administration doesn't make more of allegations that Iraq has helped train hijackers at its Salman Pak facility. It isn't as though the stories have been discredited--in fact, former CIA chief James Woolsey has testified in court that he believes the stories still stand up. So why don't the Bushies connect the dots here? What am I missing?
Post to del.icio.us

Posted by B. Preston on March 7, 2003 4:37 PM
Trackbacks: View (0)Ping
Comments

Their are alot of things that i would like to see the white house bring up. I support the war and would (if I myself was listened to) would talk about the terrorist connection much more to show that in a way, yes 9/11 is part of the connection. So there Barbara Streisand.

I sometimes wonder if Bush Senior has passed along to Bush Junior the CIA way of thinking. “I need to know everything, you don’t need to know anything.”

A more charitable explanation is that Junior is a natural poker-player, or a natural Texan. “I ain’t gonna say nothing, because you wouldn’t believe it anyway. Just wait till I do something, then you’ll know what I’m after.”

Posted by ockham on March 7, 2003 10:56 PM

My theory is that making an Iraqi connection to the September 11 attacks (or the subsequent anthrax) would make war with Iraq both urgent and impossible to avoid. It appears to me that the war plan has depended on on a slow buildup of force with a lot of distractions for Saddam. I imagine the planners think Saddam is waiting for the war to start to launch his doomsday scenarios, so they have planned a war without a start, so to speak. “No Fly” Patrols have tripled and there have been acknowledgements that US Special forces are on the ground in Iraq, yet if Saddam does anything, it would only make it look like he started the war. In fact, Saddam has been forced to destroy some of his own weapons in order to avoid looking like he started the war.

If Bush went to Congress with actual evidence that Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks, everyone would be clamoring for an immediate attack, and patience would have to go out the window. If he had gone to the UN with such proof a year ago, they might have blessed the attack, which would have surely resulted in Saddam using every weapon available.

Posted by Kevin Colwell on March 9, 2003 2:22 AM

A good question to be sure. In my view, there’s so much ‘resistance’ to believing facts as presented (think flat earthers), he’s not wasting time on the matter…at this moment.

Besides, the truth coming out after the fact (captured documents and eyewitnesses), will turn into a case of ‘fatal embarassment’ for the donks.

Videotaped comments CAN come back to haunt your ass. Ask Bubba Clinton.

Posted by Charles on March 10, 2003 9:12 PM
Post a comment